Do you see much in Collin’s work that could be termed “Marxist”? Does anything from the video on Marx and conflict theory seem to resonate with Collin’s article? How might Fine’s Chapter 4 fit in here?
From Dana R-D Among possible connections between the concepts and discourse patterns presented in the Collin’s article and in the video on Marxism, the theory of “hegemonic culture” initially developed by Antonio Gramsci seemed to resonate most closely with Collin’s description of Bourdieu’s work on “social reproduction” and the associated concepts of “fields” and competitive “capital” resources. In Collin’s research focus, the formulation of personal “career portfolios” by students as a key element of their school work served as a case of socially-reproducing (in an educational environment) a “habitus” (a socially normed disposition) to document and leverage their personal “capital” resources (such as good grades, extracurricular efforts, “leadership” roles, student association memberships, recognition awards, teacher accolades, etc.) for competitive advantage over other students in capturing the most attractive, and therefore limited, “career path” opportunities available). In short, generating a self-promotion tool for increased personal success in the career advancement market vs. other students. In Collin’s research context, the “capital” norm that led to the most success in the opportunity race was a “portfolio” that strongly “ratifies middle-class values and sensibilities” and “professional orientations”. In Marxist’s terms, this “capital” target could readily be labeled as reflecting a “bourgeoise class” norm of mores and mentality. This might also suggest that Paul (the student subject) draws on a different, and possibly opposing Marxist positionality of laboring class (“proletariat”) mores and outlook, although Collin’s does not appear to adopt this line of socio-economic categorization. I don’t see the theoretical and research writings by Michelle Fine (in Chapter 4) as closely linked to the content of Collin’s article. Perhaps one cross-over theme would be the “cruel policy irony, and another installment of radicalized state violence, represented by the distorted assumptions (from a dominate professional, middle-class “capital” orientation) regarding the effects on students who are attending schools and/or particular classes in schools where the “learning” environment is seriously under-resourced and policy-disrupted on a chronic basis. This deep disconnect in appreciation of what the “lived experience” of different students is across racial and socio-economic differences is vividly shown through Fine’s research findings. As regards what might be taken for restorative justice in this “cruel” educational dilemma, Fine indicates some hope through “alternative campaigns and movements sprouting up across the nation.” In contrast, an ideological Marxist dialectic would expect revolution by the oppressed as the necessary, and inevitable, next phase in the process of historical materialism to address these unjust conditions.
Conflict Theory, developed by Karl Marx, purports that due to society’s never-ending competition for finite resources, it will always be in a state of conflict. The implication of this theory is that those in possession of wealth and resources will protect and hoard those resources, while those without will do whatever they can to obtain them. This dynamic means there is a constant struggle between the rich and the poor. Collin criticizes educational attitudes that exaggerate competition and underestimate ethics. He argues that if a student spends most of her life in a field centered on competition and uses capital to get ahead, she may develop a habitus that is inclined toward competition, and ethics may begin to carry less weight in her mind. However, education should be centered around goodness. It is clear that Collin opposes the overemphasis or even exaggeration of the importance of competition in education, in favor of a focus on goodness. This is consistent with Marx's theory of conflict. In order to reduce conflicts, the government and society should make efforts to rationally allocate resources and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, so as to achieve equal development in the whole society and improve the well-being of the poor. Fine's essay addresses the lack of students: lack of schools, lack of teachers, lack of resources, lack of opportunities. This is a serious lack of resource allocation. According to Marx's theory of conflict, this lack will lead to the lack of the party to constantly seek the missing resources, which will lead to conflict or even revolt or social unrest. Many of the people interviewed in the article live at the bottom of society, so their voices should be heard, respected and responded to. The government and the private sector should consider the needs of these people and provide necessary support. The author calls on society to treat them and their classes and ethnic groups well, including the educators among them. The fairness of a society should be reflected in the fairness of the distribution of educational resources. A focus on goodness, as the author says, is a constant feature of human life. This is consistent with the appeal of Collin's article, and also reflects the Marxist view of education. From Hui Sun
Collins work on Bourdieu's theory is a natural evolution from Marxist conflict theory. According to Collins, the reproduction of social hierarchies is achieved through competition. That competition, in turn, shapes habitus and how people behave within their social standing. This then reinforces the need for competition, as we now value the competition that delivers us to our desired social standing. This plays into Marx's theory of hegemony, where the ruling class (in his words, the bourgeoisie) stays in power because society believes in and plays by their hegemonic rules. We embrace these rules because it gives us structure and comfort. We can work and labor and hustle until the cows come home, comforted with the belief that such painstaking work, often focused on individual gain over collective gain, will grant us comfort at the end of the day.
Where Bourdieu's theories deviate from Marx's work is his emphasis on cultural and social capital as foundational alongside economic capital. Weaponized cultural capital is a tool used by the ruling class to help maintain their hegemonic structures. The ruling class decides what is valuable behavior and what isn't. They decide what is attractive appearance and what isn't. And when someone or some population is deemed to have this unattractive, low value qualities, the rest of the proletariat will come to revile them. In the formulation of a "win-state" of inclusion in the bourgeoisie, they have constructed a "lose-state" in the form of some artificially baser qualities. What this lose-state looks like varies by culture to culture, but in the United States that lose-state tends to be aligned with racial lines.
This isn't to suggest that we are fools for participating in this hegemonic battle. When mired in the actual muck of witnessing your labor being devalued and having to fight for the means to survive, it is only natural to strive to escape to the only dry land you see: the gleaming, glimmering shores of the ruling class. Survival instincts kick in, and while you may see others struggling to stay afloat in the same swamp, you feel you can only worry about yourself. If and when you reach those safe shores, it is surprisingly easy to brush yourself off and adopt the same mentalities of the other bourgeoise on this island. After all, when in Rome, ignore the toxic, oppressive nature of your societal realities as the Romans do.
So how does this all relate to education? When I was reading Fine's work, I was struck by the demonstration of hatred her students reported in the form of overbearing police presence and random searches on the lower-track students. These students, which Fine appropriately identifies as students who are already living precarious lives, are brought into the hallway, and their humiliation of being searched is on full display for the whole school. If I were a student in one of the higher-track classes, and I saw a collection of black and brown students being routinely mistreated, my first thought wouldn't be to question the system. After all, I was in Rome, ignoring the toxic oppressive nature of my societal realities. Instead, I would place a negative value on whatever identity these students had and go about my business doing everything in my power to NOT be like them. Thus the cycle repeats. I have bought into the belief that being like those lower-track students is a lose-state, and I will work so hard in my efforts to not be them that I no longer question the hegemony that I find myself in. I have been placated and indoctrinated to this structure from within the safe confines of my higher school, middle school, or elementary classroom. Ash TB
In our readings this week I was struck by an old concept from my past life (I used to be a video game developer, and that was what my first masters was in) - the concept of a "zero sum game". A zero sum game is one in which any resource gained by one player reduces the resources available to others - in other words, only one winner is possible, and it is impossible to work towards victory without hindering your competitors.
Collins' article presents Bourdieu's focus on competition as framing education, correctly or incorrectly, as a zero-sum game. Any time, energy, or resource given to one student denies that resource to other students. This has been an unstated theme of many of the articles we have read - actions that advantage some students almost automatically disadvantage others.
I think this is tied to the concept of a "knowledge economy", in other words the idea that knowledge generates capital and is itself a form of capital. If the accumulation of knowledge is in essence the accumulation of wealth (and the creation of further opportunities to accrue wealth), than it is impossible not to view education as a competitive, zero-sum landscape.
I cannot help but view this as a natural extension of Marx's ideology of conflict theory. Marx's influence on Bourdieu is clear in their focus on competition, and Collins is correct to point out the ethical quandaries inherent in this approach.
I am left with a question of whether education is inevitably a zero-sum game. Certainly, it is currently set up to be one. Is there the possibility of an educational structure in which the dispersal of resources to one student does not take them from another?
As far as the article Collin wrote, the idea of shifting the focus from competition to ethics in education is interesting and does have a ring of Marxism to it in that we need to refocus on the good of the whole as opposed to the focus on competing for the prize. In the readings this week, there is this sense that in education, competition is extreme to the point that kids are focused primarily on that pressure and not on the ethics of what they are attempting to achieve. Nor is there a true desire for those who are the "haves" to truly look at what this dynamic of competition has created in schools (or with impoverished students in richer schools) who don't have the same competitive edge. It is clear that the government policy and neoliberal ideology have a significant influence on student experience in schools. Leveling the playing field for students and incorporating a more ethical stance in education doesn't fit into that neoliberal plan, and it also doesn't align with the policies educational leaders have put into place in order to please those at the top. The conflict theory explains how constant tension between people competing for resources leads to the loss of the ethics that Collin discusses in his article, which then leads to the examples discussed in Fine's chapter. I saw them all as possible pieces of the same educational problem addressed in stages of progress- small bits of the same problematic puzzle.The issue discussed in Fine’s chapter about extending the school day in schools where 24 days a year are taken away through interruptions that are deemed important by the people whose priority to not align with the priorities of the people in the community is a prime example of the imbalance that is created by the Marx’s conflict theory. The readings this week highlighted where competition has possibly removed the ethical views that might allow the school officials to realize that the day could actually be extended if these interruptions were addressed and a more ethics focused solution put into place. What if there were subs? what if there was not a high teacher turnover rate? What if they didn’t have so many raids take place? Rather than address the issue with what might be best for the students, it is always about what is best for those who are at the forefront of the competition. Perhaps I am reading it this way because of what I am experiencing with my school district this year.
The biggest thing I took away from Collin was the idea that we have to be flexible; all the dynamics are interconnected and working together, there is no front runner. However, as I was reading, my mind was instantly drawn to the idea of hegemony and the hidden curriculum within practice and policy. So while there may be no front runner for white, middle-class Paul, he also was truly able to choose. I would like to see this same study carried out in Black and Brown communities where so many of their educational (and societal) norms are superimposed, restricting, and highly competitive. In my opinion, it's hard to measure if someone is choosing to be competitive or ethical when they have been systemically conditioned to be competitive, and as a result adhere to whatever hegemonic system they are a part of. I guess for me it is hard to simplify it to competition or ethics without looking at the demographics and asking what is the alternative. For example, did the Kenyan student even have the option of completing the work in Kiswahili? To to say she was employing a competitive strategy doesn't sit well with me, but to say she is being ethical isn't necessarily true either because it was a means to another ends. She may have just been being compliant and I think in education, we often confuse the two.
To be honest, I’ve really struggled with the content for class this week and I have been trying to put my finger on why. I think it may be the definitive nature of the content delivered that bothers me so much. In Collin’s article, I was frustrated by the argument that decisions are based on ethics. It wasn’t necessarily the argument itself but I feel like the content for the class this week was very reductionist to try to identify one specific way that people should look at the world. As with most of the content in this class, the authors continually try to explain human nature within the concept of some theory that they’re describing, implying that their view is accurate and mutually exclusive of all other views. What if all of the theories have some truth to them? What if there are multiple ways to view the world and each one holds value based on what knowledge you are seeking? What if people are motivated by both competition and ethics?
Collin’s article discusses some nuance the about term “capital.” In this week’s video and in Collin’s article, it was mentioned that capital can be described as a good that holds value. This is not always a physical object, as Collin mentions, but can be how concepts like knowledge and connections that can fuel competition in a field. Collin mentions that not all educational programs and spaces use competition, though much of their piece is centered on that concept. In my own program, this is not the cultural that I am surrounded by – and honestly, I love that. Instead, we much more value community, in which case, Collins suggests that resource finding may be another way to look at capital.
I found that the video on Marxism resonated much more with me. The video discussed how exploitation that is a side effect of capitalism. When they described the example of the proletariat, those work in places like factories, who don’t own things they make, and are paid less than their worth, I thought, “This sounds like a metaphor for education.” In many cases, educators but their whole self into their worth (mentally, emotionally, and sometimes financially) and are famously not compensated for their work. If we looked at pay gaps and inequities broken down by race, class, and gender, we could clearly see how Marx’s conflict theory is playing out. Will we see Marx’s definition of revolution happen?
Fine’s chapter discusses dominant storytelling, and how those stories impact and sways others to make decisions that are often not in the best interest others. She specifically discusses students with lower SES and students of color. She discussed stories such as “poor students being a lost cause” and how “money doesn’t change anything.” Marxists would say that this is using hegemony to feed into conflict theory.
Bourdieu’s work was mainly the study of the dynamics of power in the society and how it is transferred within the social constructs of society and through generations. In one of his book “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement Taste” looks to analyze the judgement of an individual based on their position, or even better, are the results of the position. In his work, he tried to analyze the influences of external social structures and subjective experiences on an individual.
Bourdieu was a critic of neoliberalism, and many saw him leaned towards the Marxist sense of things. In Bourdieu’s work there is a correlation between sociology and influence of politics. He used sociology to express and understand politics and believed that the sociologist had political responsibilities to mend things.
The concept of Hegemonic Culture seemed most evident in Collin’s article. Defined in the video as “a dominant set of ideas that are all-pervasive and taken for granted in society”, this came through in multiple lenses while reading the article. The reference to the Kenyan student speaking English because the teacher finds it to be for stronger students, and therefore was used so that the student could have competitive advantage, fit this well. The belief of someone in power (the teacher), swayed the action of someone who seemed to be on a lower power level (the student).
As Fine continues to discuss educational inequities in Chapter 4, I noticed small similarities to Collin’s discussion of habitus and ethics. I agreed with his point about how a person's habitus will predispose them to certain beliefs, but they are still able to draw from new ideas to continue “pursuing the good”. I tied these thoughts to Fine’s research on educational inequity, and the necessity to understand why students are marginalized, the students' personal thoughts and understanding about it, and the necessity of continuing to change for the betterment of these students. Comment by Lauren Mortensen
While watching “Falcon and the Winter Solider,” Falcon made a statement that stood out to me. He said, “When one group benefits there is always another group that suffers.” I believe he is wrong in the context he used it in; however, it is extremely applicable to education and ties Marx and Collins together for me. Too often we see resources poured into schools that are already successful as they are deemed “better” than less successful schools. In the higher ed world, we usually see grants for black male initiative programs given to PWI’s instead of HBCU because they already have more resources in place. Instead of looking at the systemic reasons some HBCUs are doing poorly when it comes to retention, money is thrown to those who have a higher floor. The fine chapter illustrates how difficult it is for students of color to get an education. There are constant disruption coming from inside the school and outside the school. Even the ones that want to be there have trouble due to school shenanigans or home issues. To be honest, absolutely none of this should be a surprise to anyone who attended a school in any city. It is kind of sad that these issues are plaguing our schools and communities across the country. I am very interested in how urban school systems will operate once minority neighborhoods are completely gentrified. Will the over policing stop? Will the school system get the money to stop overcrowding? Will teacher’s be of higher quality?
I am not knowledgeable about Bourdieu’s theories, so I struggled with this reading. I do see that the work could be interpreted as Marxist because of the discussion of the relationship between competition, ethics, position, and labor. Class and access to resources is a part of the narrative analysis. I agree with Collin’s that “education scholars ought not assume ethics is always the most important dimension of the practices and fields they study. Rather, they should develop theories and methods they can use to reveal the ethical dynamics of education and highlight ethics’ connections to competition dynamics and other dynamics.” Fine’s discussion in Chapter 4 calls into question the ethics of adding instructional time in deeply under resourced schools. She and her colleagues determined that it was not “justice” to do so. She writes that “young people who live extremely precarious lives attend profoundly precarious schools, further destabilized by state policy and corporate education reform. (page 49-50)” Because Fine and her colleagues did not “assume ethics”, but instead used a systematic analysis of qualitative and quantitative assessments of both students and educators, they were able to demonstrate that students living in highly precarious circumstances are often made more vulnerable by “policy-based disruptions” that come in the form of “protection and support.” Michelle Carter
From Dana R-D
ReplyDeleteAmong possible connections between the concepts and discourse patterns presented in the Collin’s article and in the video on Marxism, the theory of “hegemonic culture” initially developed by Antonio Gramsci seemed to resonate most closely with Collin’s description of Bourdieu’s work on “social reproduction” and the associated concepts of “fields” and competitive “capital” resources. In Collin’s research focus, the formulation of personal “career portfolios” by students as a key element of their school work served as a case of socially-reproducing (in an educational environment) a “habitus” (a socially normed disposition) to document and leverage their personal “capital” resources (such as good grades, extracurricular efforts, “leadership” roles, student association memberships, recognition awards, teacher accolades, etc.) for competitive advantage over other students in capturing the most attractive, and therefore limited, “career path” opportunities available). In short, generating a self-promotion tool for increased personal success in the career advancement market vs. other students. In Collin’s research context, the “capital” norm that led to the most success in the opportunity race was a “portfolio” that strongly “ratifies middle-class values and sensibilities” and “professional orientations”. In Marxist’s terms, this “capital” target could readily be labeled as reflecting a “bourgeoise class” norm of mores and mentality. This might also suggest that Paul (the student subject) draws on a different, and possibly opposing Marxist positionality of laboring class (“proletariat”) mores and outlook, although Collin’s does not appear to adopt this line of socio-economic categorization.
I don’t see the theoretical and research writings by Michelle Fine (in Chapter 4) as closely linked to the content of Collin’s article. Perhaps one cross-over theme would be the “cruel policy irony, and another installment of radicalized state violence, represented by the distorted assumptions (from a dominate professional, middle-class “capital” orientation) regarding the effects on students who are attending schools and/or particular classes in schools where the “learning” environment is seriously under-resourced and policy-disrupted on a chronic basis. This deep disconnect in appreciation of what the “lived experience” of different students is across racial and socio-economic differences is vividly shown through Fine’s research findings. As regards what might be taken for restorative justice in this “cruel” educational dilemma, Fine indicates some hope through “alternative campaigns and movements sprouting up across the nation.” In contrast, an ideological Marxist dialectic would expect revolution by the oppressed as the necessary, and inevitable, next phase in the process of historical materialism to address these unjust conditions.
Conflict Theory, developed by Karl Marx, purports that due to society’s never-ending competition for finite resources, it will always be in a state of conflict. The implication of this theory is that those in possession of wealth and resources will protect and hoard those resources, while those without will do whatever they can to obtain them. This dynamic means there is a constant struggle between the rich and the poor.
ReplyDeleteCollin criticizes educational attitudes that exaggerate competition and underestimate ethics. He argues that if a student spends most of her life in a field centered on competition and uses capital to get ahead, she may develop a habitus that is inclined toward competition, and ethics may begin to carry less weight in her mind. However, education should be centered around goodness. It is clear that Collin opposes the overemphasis or even exaggeration of the importance of competition in education, in favor of a focus on goodness. This is consistent with Marx's theory of conflict. In order to reduce conflicts, the government and society should make efforts to rationally allocate resources and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, so as to achieve equal development in the whole society and improve the well-being of the poor.
Fine's essay addresses the lack of students: lack of schools, lack of teachers, lack of resources, lack of opportunities. This is a serious lack of resource allocation. According to Marx's theory of conflict, this lack will lead to the lack of the party to constantly seek the missing resources, which will lead to conflict or even revolt or social unrest. Many of the people interviewed in the article live at the bottom of society, so their voices should be heard, respected and responded to. The government and the private sector should consider the needs of these people and provide necessary support. The author calls on society to treat them and their classes and ethnic groups well, including the educators among them. The fairness of a society should be reflected in the fairness of the distribution of educational resources. A focus on goodness, as the author says, is a constant feature of human life. This is consistent with the appeal of Collin's article, and also reflects the Marxist view of education.
From Hui Sun
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCollins work on Bourdieu's theory is a natural evolution from Marxist conflict theory. According to Collins, the reproduction of social hierarchies is achieved through competition. That competition, in turn, shapes habitus and how people behave within their social standing. This then reinforces the need for competition, as we now value the competition that delivers us to our desired social standing. This plays into Marx's theory of hegemony, where the ruling class (in his words, the bourgeoisie) stays in power because society believes in and plays by their hegemonic rules. We embrace these rules because it gives us structure and comfort. We can work and labor and hustle until the cows come home, comforted with the belief that such painstaking work, often focused on individual gain over collective gain, will grant us comfort at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteWhere Bourdieu's theories deviate from Marx's work is his emphasis on cultural and social capital as foundational alongside economic capital. Weaponized cultural capital is a tool used by the ruling class to help maintain their hegemonic structures. The ruling class decides what is valuable behavior and what isn't. They decide what is attractive appearance and what isn't. And when someone or some population is deemed to have this unattractive, low value qualities, the rest of the proletariat will come to revile them. In the formulation of a "win-state" of inclusion in the bourgeoisie, they have constructed a "lose-state" in the form of some artificially baser qualities. What this lose-state looks like varies by culture to culture, but in the United States that lose-state tends to be aligned with racial lines.
This isn't to suggest that we are fools for participating in this hegemonic battle. When mired in the actual muck of witnessing your labor being devalued and having to fight for the means to survive, it is only natural to strive to escape to the only dry land you see: the gleaming, glimmering shores of the ruling class. Survival instincts kick in, and while you may see others struggling to stay afloat in the same swamp, you feel you can only worry about yourself. If and when you reach those safe shores, it is surprisingly easy to brush yourself off and adopt the same mentalities of the other bourgeoise on this island. After all, when in Rome, ignore the toxic, oppressive nature of your societal realities as the Romans do.
So how does this all relate to education? When I was reading Fine's work, I was struck by the demonstration of hatred her students reported in the form of overbearing police presence and random searches on the lower-track students. These students, which Fine appropriately identifies as students who are already living precarious lives, are brought into the hallway, and their humiliation of being searched is on full display for the whole school. If I were a student in one of the higher-track classes, and I saw a collection of black and brown students being routinely mistreated, my first thought wouldn't be to question the system. After all, I was in Rome, ignoring the toxic oppressive nature of my societal realities. Instead, I would place a negative value on whatever identity these students had and go about my business doing everything in my power to NOT be like them. Thus the cycle repeats. I have bought into the belief that being like those lower-track students is a lose-state, and I will work so hard in my efforts to not be them that I no longer question the hegemony that I find myself in. I have been placated and indoctrinated to this structure from within the safe confines of my higher school, middle school, or elementary classroom.
Ash TB
In our readings this week I was struck by an old concept from my past life (I used to be a video game developer, and that was what my first masters was in) - the concept of a "zero sum game". A zero sum game is one in which any resource gained by one player reduces the resources available to others - in other words, only one winner is possible, and it is impossible to work towards victory without hindering your competitors.
ReplyDeleteCollins' article presents Bourdieu's focus on competition as framing education, correctly or incorrectly, as a zero-sum game. Any time, energy, or resource given to one student denies that resource to other students. This has been an unstated theme of many of the articles we have read - actions that advantage some students almost automatically disadvantage others.
I think this is tied to the concept of a "knowledge economy", in other words the idea that knowledge generates capital and is itself a form of capital. If the accumulation of knowledge is in essence the accumulation of wealth (and the creation of further opportunities to accrue wealth), than it is impossible not to view education as a competitive, zero-sum landscape.
I cannot help but view this as a natural extension of Marx's ideology of conflict theory. Marx's influence on Bourdieu is clear in their focus on competition, and Collins is correct to point out the ethical quandaries inherent in this approach.
I am left with a question of whether education is inevitably a zero-sum game. Certainly, it is currently set up to be one. Is there the possibility of an educational structure in which the dispersal of resources to one student does not take them from another?
As far as the article Collin wrote, the idea of shifting the focus from competition to ethics in education is interesting and does have a ring of Marxism to it in that we need to refocus on the good of the whole as opposed to the focus on competing for the prize. In the readings this week, there is this sense that in education, competition is extreme to the point that kids are focused primarily on that pressure and not on the ethics of what they are attempting to achieve. Nor is there a true desire for those who are the "haves" to truly look at what this dynamic of competition has created in schools (or with impoverished students in richer schools) who don't have the same competitive edge. It is clear that the government policy and neoliberal ideology have a significant influence on student experience in schools. Leveling the playing field for students and incorporating a more ethical stance in education doesn't fit into that neoliberal plan, and it also doesn't align with the policies educational leaders have put into place in order to please those at the top. The conflict theory explains how constant tension between people competing for resources leads to the loss of the ethics that Collin discusses in his article, which then leads to the examples discussed in Fine's chapter. I saw them all as possible pieces of the same educational problem addressed in stages of progress- small bits of the same problematic puzzle.The issue discussed in Fine’s chapter about extending the school day in schools where 24 days a year are taken away through interruptions that are deemed important by the people whose priority to not align with the priorities of the people in the community is a prime example of the imbalance that is created by the Marx’s conflict theory. The readings this week highlighted where competition has possibly removed the ethical views that might allow the school officials to realize that the day could actually be extended if these interruptions were addressed and a more ethics focused solution put into place. What if there were subs? what if there was not a high teacher turnover rate? What if they didn’t have so many raids take place? Rather than address the issue with what might be best for the students, it is always about what is best for those who are at the forefront of the competition. Perhaps I am reading it this way because of what I am experiencing with my school district this year.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing I took away from Collin was the idea that we have to be flexible; all the dynamics are interconnected and working together, there is no front runner. However, as I was reading, my mind was instantly drawn to the idea of hegemony and the hidden curriculum within practice and policy. So while there may be no front runner for white, middle-class Paul, he also was truly able to choose. I would like to see this same study carried out in Black and Brown communities where so many of their educational (and societal) norms are superimposed, restricting, and highly competitive. In my opinion, it's hard to measure if someone is choosing to be competitive or ethical when they have been systemically conditioned to be competitive, and as a result adhere to whatever hegemonic system they are a part of. I guess for me it is hard to simplify it to competition or ethics without looking at the demographics and asking what is the alternative. For example, did the Kenyan student even have the option of completing the work in Kiswahili? To to say she was employing a competitive strategy doesn't sit well with me, but to say she is being ethical isn't necessarily true either because it was a means to another ends. She may have just been being compliant and I think in education, we often confuse the two.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I’ve really struggled with the content for class this week and I have been trying to put my finger on why. I think it may be the definitive nature of the content delivered that bothers me so much. In Collin’s article, I was frustrated by the argument that decisions are based on ethics. It wasn’t necessarily the argument itself but I feel like the content for the class this week was very reductionist to try to identify one specific way that people should look at the world. As with most of the content in this class, the authors continually try to explain human nature within the concept of some theory that they’re describing, implying that their view is accurate and mutually exclusive of all other views. What if all of the theories have some truth to them? What if there are multiple ways to view the world and each one holds value based on what knowledge you are seeking? What if people are motivated by both competition and ethics?
ReplyDeleteJosh Hurley
DeletePost by Mia Liadis:
ReplyDeleteCollin’s article discusses some nuance the about term “capital.” In this week’s video and in Collin’s article, it was mentioned that capital can be described as a good that holds value. This is not always a physical object, as Collin mentions, but can be how concepts like knowledge and connections that can fuel competition in a field. Collin mentions that not all educational programs and spaces use competition, though much of their piece is centered on that concept. In my own program, this is not the cultural that I am surrounded by – and honestly, I love that. Instead, we much more value community, in which case, Collins suggests that resource finding may be another way to look at capital.
I found that the video on Marxism resonated much more with me. The video discussed how exploitation that is a side effect of capitalism. When they described the example of the proletariat, those work in places like factories, who don’t own things they make, and are paid less than their worth, I thought, “This sounds like a metaphor for education.” In many cases, educators but their whole self into their worth (mentally, emotionally, and sometimes financially) and are famously not compensated for their work. If we looked at pay gaps and inequities broken down by race, class, and gender, we could clearly see how Marx’s conflict theory is playing out. Will we see Marx’s definition of revolution happen?
Fine’s chapter discusses dominant storytelling, and how those stories impact and sways others to make decisions that are often not in the best interest others. She specifically discusses students with lower SES and students of color. She discussed stories such as “poor students being a lost cause” and how “money doesn’t change anything.” Marxists would say that this is using hegemony to feed into conflict theory.
Bourdieu’s work was mainly the study of the dynamics of power in the society and how it is transferred within the social constructs of society and through generations. In one of his book “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement Taste” looks to analyze the judgement of an individual based on their position, or even better, are the results of the position. In his work, he tried to analyze the influences of external social structures and subjective experiences on an individual.
ReplyDeleteBourdieu was a critic of neoliberalism, and many saw him leaned towards the Marxist sense of things. In Bourdieu’s work there is a correlation between sociology and influence of politics. He used sociology to express and understand politics and believed that the sociologist had political responsibilities to mend things.
The concept of Hegemonic Culture seemed most evident in Collin’s article. Defined in the video as “a dominant set of ideas that are all-pervasive and taken for granted in society”, this came through in multiple lenses while reading the article. The reference to the Kenyan student speaking English because the teacher finds it to be for stronger students, and therefore was used so that the student could have competitive advantage, fit this well. The belief of someone in power (the teacher), swayed the action of someone who seemed to be on a lower power level (the student).
ReplyDeleteAs Fine continues to discuss educational inequities in Chapter 4, I noticed small similarities to Collin’s discussion of habitus and ethics. I agreed with his point about how a person's habitus will predispose them to certain beliefs, but they are still able to draw from new ideas to continue “pursuing the good”. I tied these thoughts to Fine’s research on educational inequity, and the necessity to understand why students are marginalized, the students' personal thoughts and understanding about it, and the necessity of continuing to change for the betterment of these students.
Comment by Lauren Mortensen
After listening to Ross talk in class, I now feel like I missed the whole point...
DeleteFrom Lauren - commenting on my own blog post.
DeleteWhile watching “Falcon and the Winter Solider,” Falcon made a statement that stood out to me. He said, “When one group benefits there is always another group that suffers.” I believe he is wrong in the context he used it in; however, it is extremely applicable to education and ties Marx and Collins together for me. Too often we see resources poured into schools that are already successful as they are deemed “better” than less successful schools. In the higher ed world, we usually see grants for black male initiative programs given to PWI’s instead of HBCU because they already have more resources in place. Instead of looking at the systemic reasons some HBCUs are doing poorly when it comes to retention, money is thrown to those who have a higher floor.
ReplyDeleteThe fine chapter illustrates how difficult it is for students of color to get an education. There are constant disruption coming from inside the school and outside the school. Even the ones that want to be there have trouble due to school shenanigans or home issues. To be honest, absolutely none of this should be a surprise to anyone who attended a school in any city. It is kind of sad that these issues are plaguing our schools and communities across the country. I am very interested in how urban school systems will operate once minority neighborhoods are completely gentrified. Will the over policing stop? Will the school system get the money to stop overcrowding? Will teacher’s be of higher quality?
Gerron Scott
I am not knowledgeable about Bourdieu’s theories, so I struggled with this reading. I do see that the work could be interpreted as Marxist because of the discussion of the relationship between competition, ethics, position, and labor. Class and access to resources is a part of the narrative analysis. I agree with Collin’s that “education scholars ought not assume ethics is always the most important dimension of the practices and fields they study. Rather, they should develop theories and methods they can use to reveal the ethical dynamics of education and highlight ethics’ connections to competition dynamics and other dynamics.” Fine’s discussion in Chapter 4 calls into question the ethics of adding instructional time in deeply under resourced schools. She and her colleagues determined that it was not “justice” to do so. She writes that “young people who live extremely precarious lives attend profoundly precarious schools, further destabilized by state policy and corporate education reform. (page 49-50)” Because Fine and her colleagues did not “assume ethics”, but instead used a systematic analysis of qualitative and quantitative assessments of both students and educators, they were able to demonstrate that students living in highly precarious circumstances are often made more vulnerable by “policy-based disruptions” that come in the form of “protection and support.” Michelle Carter
ReplyDelete